Via Peter, I see that Apple is rumored to be introducing aluminum Macbooks. Great! I think aluminum looks cooler, and it may even dissipate heat better (although, somewhat counterintuitively, it seems to make for less durable computers).
But are they really trying to claim that an aluminum shell is somehow more ecologically friendly than a plastic one? I mean, yes, aluminum can be recycled. But it consumes a huge amount of energy to produce aluminum in the first place. If we’re considering carbon footprint as part of our ecological assessment, the plastic case almost certainly comes out on top.
It probably doesn’t matter too much either way. The case is the least environmentally problematic part of the computer. Apple is RoHS-compliant, so they’re doing what they can with respect to the internals, but that’s still a much bigger issue than what the shell is made of.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that plastic computers pick up wireless signals better than aluminum ones.
Most aluminum is refined/smelted using hydroelectric power; therefore carbon footprint is much lower than it might otherwise be. Get your concepts straight – not all power is based on fossil fuels, therefore not all power impacts carbon footprint.
Oh please. Within a landmass electricity is pretty much fungible. And even in locations with abundant energy, aluminum smelting can be intensely destructive to the environment — have a look at the article about Iceland in this month’s Harper’s for an example.
Metals are energy intensive; plastics are not. Plastics can stick around a long time and some chemicals we add to them can have nasty effects on our endocrine systems, but they are a much, much cheaper material than metal in pretty much every sense of the word.